Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Theres a difference between askin questions and demanding help in a specific way, swearing at those that try help you, you unsavoury little bastard. now piss off.

The biggest erogenous zone is in the br-

aw fuckin hell.

who cares what this cunt wants, hes rude stupid lazy, and even more rude stupid and lazy. You did too much giving him even that much help.

At 8/14/06 03:52 PM, Erkie wrote: You're (WinTang, Spams) still approaching philosophy as though it is mumbo jumbo:

To distinguish which dfifering philosophies are correct in any issues, exchange must be in the form of a debate; indeed it is Facts vs Facts, but those facts serve with statements and have examples, let's say on a certain subject, let's take world hunger as example: one side will fight for it's positives and the other side will fight for it's negatives, both sides have facts, and they must be weighed in order to set truth form falsity.

in philosophy correct is a subjective opinion.
World hunger is a strange example to choose, tho i see your point, but since this is philosophy anyway, truth is merely a subjective concept. There is no empirical scientific truth in philosophy.

Philosophy has actually, no facts as a concept. Philosophy is about speculation in the absence of facts. Since philosophy cannot prove anything, it is inherently useless.

I do concur, the human language is small and puny and leads to lengthy discussions and discourses, but it's the meaning that counts, you may look at words and find implications and an attitude and all that stuff, but that doesn't matter and there's no particular reason why it should be resented.

See previous, it is inherently useless.

My rhetoric is clear and precise and follows along a large vocabulary, but for a reason, not because I' am too incompetent too have ideas or to display them, but that is what I have come to accept, you cannot blame me for furthering my own abilities to showcase my purposes.

This isnt about gettin personal far as i'm concerned really. Its about how philosophy is a waste of time and resources IMO, and i could supply facts, but as philosophy student of a strong mind you will never accept that, so why bother.

Instead i will ask you, what have individual philosophers achieved for mankind. and whether anyone could come up with anything new and helpful in todays world.

<removed cos is irrelevant to the topic>

Oh well, I didn't intend to say much, but too late!

or option C

GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE, YOU NOOB. DONT YOU DARE COME IN HERE AND TELL US WHAT TO DO. I HOPE AND PRAY YOU'RE NOT BRITISH, COS IF YOU ARE I'M GOING TO...

FUCKING CRY.

plus, no ones seen ragevi in ages.

I think i speak for us all when i say, WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK are you on about.

I'd like an ounce of fun, but i'm banned from the fun shop. I'm addicted to fun and tried shoplifting an ounce of fine fun, i got caught and they had fun throwing my arse out into the street. Which wasnt fun for me, the fun loving bastards.

anyone else feel like they lost braincells from reading that passage.

I think its just bad luck myself if its not the action on the guitar, its happened to my guitary mates before, just replace it n let us know if it happens again.

What brand of strings are you using btw, it'll mean nothing to me but the guitarists will want to know.

FACT.

...yes?

Yes.

suits me :D

You're right on the words, it can get to the point where it looks like intellectual intimidation, but in all fairness that is a commonly acknowledged style of debating and it in itself is really not that difficult to counter. I think the whole facts-thing is moot here, because when you're debating it doesn't make much sense (there it is again) to constantly use "I think" "IM(H)O" because considering the circumstances, they are your opinion by default and therefore, not facts.

yeah that is true, but you get a better result of converting the stupid to your beliefs if you treat something as fact instead of opinion. anyway nuff of talking about my sweet darling erkie.

The claim is that its an attempt to understand the world and universe around us.

Now it would be nice to see you provide some proof that this in fact is their claim, because I don't really see it that way.

Erkie says: Then you hold a misconception of philosophy.

Philosophy is explaining existence, reality, who we are, and what we're supposed to do. Everyone has philosophies that vary in dedication and stances.

Philosophy has an ultimatum, it's not mumbo-jumbo or talking about not existing -- even that is called nihilism.

Since erkie is studying it at university/college, then that is my proof.

I find that the value of philosophy lies in the way it shapes the mind to be receptive - because if nothing is automatically true, nothing is automatically false either.

A study of philosphy at university level is not necessary to achieve this. If it is you are a moron.

No, it is not achieved from the study, it's what the study works with. It's not a study that provides answers, it provides theories and the knowledge to understand them. Without that knowledge, debating them will be most likely impossible.

What the study of philosophy mainly works with it you, personally. I'm sorry, maybe i'm being dense but can you rephrase that.

This gives philosophy a social value. I like to think vandalism, terrorism, senseless violence and the like are results of a human predatory instinct, an instinct that clashes with every social structure that man has developed since the evolution into Homo Sapiens. Philosophy is a tool to help counter said instincts with rationality.

Vandalism, terrorism and sensless violence are philosophies in themselves. A set of beliefs. Philosophy in this context is like alcohol, the cause and solution to all of lifes little problems.

So what you're saying is that vandalism etc are chosen ways of life? It is possible, I must admit that I don't credit people like that for actually using their rationality in this case. That may be tunnel-visioned of me.

Who said anything about beliefs being rational? belief in anything without proof is one of the most irrational concepts ever, yet we all subscribe to it in some way.
but yeah, people LIKE smashing things up, the rationale being, its fun to look hard in front of your mates, or scare people, or whatever. That is their beliefs.

Philosophy is of no use to the people who are violent, primitive etc, as they rigidly hold onto their beliefs, their philosophy. Ergo, the only things that counters the human instinct for violence in individuals is the human instinct for peace.

That seems paradoxal. If it was indeed their "philosophy", they would have come to the decision to live this way by acknowledging and disregarding the arguments against it. I also don't really follow your conclusion here, mostly because I can recall a few moments in my own life where I consciously had to suppress my instinct for violence, and my instinct for peace was really nowhere to be found.

Perhaps this "conscious choice" you speak of is in fact, the insinct for peace and advancement. If you didnt have it then you would have used violence.

To this someone will say, "how can you say we have an instinct for peace in this world with all this horrible shit going on"

to which i say, we're still here, despite the invention of the worst things man has seen.
The instinct for peace is what makes friendship possible with people, who on a primitive level are your genetic rivals, and in the neanderthal age they probably ate each other.

I doubt that we have an instinct for peace. I think that in general, we have developed the rationality that gave us the insight that peace is most often more beneficial than violence. This has to do with calculating the future.

Yes. the instinct for peace. The instinct for violence is about immediate graftification, peace gave us a chance to learn to think instead of just react to a situation.

Now does anyone else see why i said its hard to try pick apart reality using puny human language.

Example:
I truly loathe some people for being, as I see it, dumb, and bearing no (or negative) contribution to society whatsoever.
So I could kill them. Really, that thought occurs to me, I do not control that, it just happens. Their death wouldn't matter to me, I don't know them, don't need them, they just annoy me like mosquitos annoy me, and I kill those too. I don't feel any compassion, I don't see any beauty in their being a human being, etcetera.
But I know, or at least have a sufficient idea of the consequences that the murdering would have. On the practical side, I will be punished for my deed and I don't want that. But on a more spiritual, personal side, I do not want to be the person I would be when I were to commit a murder. My philosophy is that killing is wrong, and I can see myself in the future as Someone Who Has Killed. That image repels me and makes the decision for me.
Result: I swallow my instinct for violence, and ignore the douchebags.

see previous re: peace instinct.

But yeah, people who contribute actually nothing, shouldnt be here, they dont belong.

What is contributing? It could be argued that thievery and violence is like the cheetah picking off the slowest gazelles, which in turn makes the gazelles better.

So does good and evil in an OBJECTIVE sense, actually exist, or is it all in the eye of the beholder.

Maybe you cut it too short then overtightened it? or just bought a string thats too short?

Perhaps the action is too high?

Perhaps it was just a shit dodgy string?

At 8/14/06 09:29 AM, WinTang wrote: It would be good to set aside your personal gripes with Erkie when you are trying to make a point against his.

i currently have no personal gripes with erkie. I just have problems with useless things and useless wastes of finite resources.

See, Erkie mentioned himself in this thread that philosophy is not a science (philosophy derives from Greek and roughly translates to "passion for knowledge"). The points you bring up yourself are not scientific either (which I'm sure you know), because generally in science, a theory can only exist by being proven right, not by not being proven wrong.

...yes?

I must say that Erkie's rhetoric far outweighs Chronamut's here, not just because Erkie debates on a more global level, but also because he just throws his theories out there, while Chronamut has taken a position that auto-counters everything that denies him. The position itself is flawed, though: because "sense" is a subjective term, no "world of anti-sense" is perceivable but by the creator of that world. Therefore he cannot prove that he is a god just because that doesn't make sense to me, because there is no way for him to determine the sense it makes to me.

Erkie is like the best politician. Assaults you with a whirlwind of words, some of which only he understands, and then treats this as fact. When the fact is, there are no facts in philosophy. If there were, it wouldnt be possible to debate it.

Furthermore, I don't believe that philosophy is designed to acheive anything on a cosmic level - it is, like religion, a way to help deal with all the inexplainable, both structural and conceptual. But while religion basically strives to come up with a solution, philosophy will try to juxtapose all possible solutions and debate them where possible.

The claim is that its an attempt to understand the world and universe around us.

I find that the value of philosophy lies in the way it shapes the mind to be receptive - because if nothing is automatically true, nothing is automatically false either.

A study of philosphy at university level is not necessary to achieve this. If it is you are a moron.

This gives philosophy a social value. I like to think vandalism, terrorism, senseless violence and the like are results of a human predatory instinct, an instinct that clashes with every social structure that man has developed since the evolution into Homo Sapiens. Philosophy is a tool to help counter said instincts with rationality.

Vandalism, terrorism and sensless violence are philosophies in themselves. A set of beliefs. Philosophy in this context is like alcohol, the cause and solution to all of lifes little problems.

Philosophy is of no use to the people who are violent, primitive etc, as they rigidly hold onto their beliefs, their philosophy. Ergo, the only things that counters the human instinct for violence in individuals is the human instinct for peace.

To this someone will say, "how can you say we have an instinct for peace in this world with all this horrible shit going on"

to which i say, we're still here, despite the invention of the worst things man has seen.
The instinct for peace is what makes friendship possible with people, who on a primitive level are your genetic rivals, and in the neanderthal age they probably ate each other.

REVEN WHERE ARE YOU.

Gotta love how erkies trying to school everyone with how the universe works cos erkies doin a philosophy degree.

Philosophy is inherently unproveable, because it is not scientific. The fact is, this entire universe could only exist to me, for me, and no one else has an actual human mind like me, and i'll never have PROOF that it is or isnt any other way.

Fact is, I myself, could actually be GOD, but cos i'm god i've chosen to live a life of ignorance without my godly powers, just for a buzz, cos humanity is the only place an omnipotent being would face challenge.

Or perhaps the religions that believe in a single creator god are right, and we are actually separate beings.

Or perhaps god doesnt exist and the atheists are correct.

Speculating about the nature of the universe using the puny tool of human language will never actually acheive anything useful on a cosmic level, and since we are in the post modern age that basically, just rehashes previous dead peoples views, there is nothing useful to be gained from an academic study of philosophy.

It could be useful for social policy, but since theres drawbacks to everything, what really is the point.

Ergo, philosophy is a useless, if occasionally pleasant waste of time, and the sooner these snooty philosophers realise it, and stop getting grants to teach people or learn it, the better.

People should be getting on with the space programme instead of wasting time wondering if the stars are actually real.

I HOPE YUO GET SHOT IN THE ARSE BY AN ELEHPANT GNU.

AND BY THAT I MEAN A GUN THAT FIRES ELEPHANTS.

GET

OUT.

haha only just got that.

oh yeah on a random note, is the AP smoking or non smoking?

I just tried sushi for the first time.

Its odd but tasty. I never thought i'd like eating raw fish, but there you have it.

For 100 dollars plus air fees, i will, attempt to help you with this problem :D

STFU YOU NOOB. I'M TELLING YOU THIS, COS NO MATTER HOW POLITE YOU ARE, YOU'RE STILL A BELL END FOR NOT READING THE FUCKING STICKY.

YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF MEAN BASTARDS.

*cires self to sleep*

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WILL YOU ALL SHUT UP, I'M TRYING TO GET SOME SLEEP OVER HERE

(goes and sleeps in corner, protected by a covert electric fence)

It is decided then. The poster can go to the voice actors club in clubs n crews.

that is correct, isnt it?

hahaha. sorry about that.

XD

YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF CUNTS NOW SHUT

THE

FUCK

UP.

END.

BUY THE PROGRAMME, DUMMY.

At 8/6/06 04:24 PM, thenecronwolf wrote: I was asking for a genre, not a song, so stop bitching about it !(sorry for foul language)

You are like the idiots that drove many people away... please stop

I'M THE IDIOT THAT DRIVES EVERYONE AWAY. NOW GET THE FUCK OUT BEFORE I PISS ON YOUR PARENTS AND SET YOUR SHOES ON FIRE.

Solus didnt make ONE appearance in that thread.

give us an explanation you bastard or i'll bite your legs off.

point 1. i've never seen the guy.

2. WHERE IS HE.

O

M

G

LOL that guy has the longest arms i've ever seen. Plus a bit of 3step slightly trancey dance about a bot called anna.

Genius.